A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered bypassing from the tri-mar of the C-type T-mar distance in front of the D-type restaurant located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si to the future as soon as possible, there was a traffic accident that conflicts between the Defendant’s vehicle’s right-hand gate, front penter and the Plaintiff’s left-hand gate, and front penter part of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,550,000 in the name of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the above acknowledged facts, the accident of this case was caused by the principal negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who did not sufficiently examine the traffic conditions of the vehicle that entered the road bypassing from the road to the right of way, while entering the road. On the other hand, the driver of the defendant's vehicle was negligent by neglecting the duty of safe driving and proceeding at the rapid speed with the plaintiff's vehicle without speed, even though it was possible for the driver to easily confirm the movement of the plaintiff's vehicle in advance because there was no element impeding the view at the time, and thus, the accident of this case also contributed to the occurrence of the accident and the expansion of damage.

Therefore, in light of the circumstances of the above accident, it is reasonable to 80% of the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and 20% of the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

Therefore, the Defendant’s insurance money of KRW 2,50,000 paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 510,000 (= KRW 2,550,000) and the Defendant’s claim as to the existence and scope of the obligation from November 22, 2016, which is the insurance payment date, is the date of the judgment of the competent court.